Penn State Penalties

[strez]

I didn't state that I advocated anything, so don't try to put words in my mouth. Penalizing the current 2012 PSU football players and student body for decade old errors in judgment by officials who are already being legally sanctioned is wrong. Period. Should you or I be punished for the My Lai Massacre of 1968? There is no logic that I can see for the type far after-the-fact sanction being imposed on PSU. There is good rationale for establishing statutes of limitations in our legal system.

Thank you for actually using reason and common sense.

[Kevlar]

The students and student athletes are definitely going to feel the brunt of it, but this is also why the NCAA has granted them the ability to be released from their Penn State scholarships and transfer anywhere they'd like (D-1, D-1AA, D-2, etc) and not have to sit out a year.

Right, the students don't have to go down with the ship. They are free to transfer to any other instituition of their choice with no sanctions from the NCAA.

If they choose to stay at Pedophile U that is on them.

[festivus]

Thank you for actually using reason and common sense.

It's called "deterrence." Mista T doesn't see it, you apparently don't see it, but deterrence is actually supported by reason and common sense. "Do not let the football team run the university again, Penn State, and do not let the sports teams run your universities either, NCAA schools, or we will drop the mother @#$!ing hammer on you and your students and your boosters will weep, but we will not have sympathy. Security and the rule of law are more important than your precious football team."

That's deterrence. Like it, don't like it, I don't care. It is perfectly logical, and it is supported by common sense.

[psuasskicker]

- Vacating wins was done because had they come forward with announcing Sandusky's problems in '01, it would have hurt the reputation of the school and program, which would have hurt recruiting and the viability of the program. Thus it created a competitive imbalance. Thus, vacate wins during that time. Doing so from '98 was stupid and arbitrary. Sandusky was formally investigated and cleared. I don't think I've heard anyone in the PSU administration alleged to have done something wrong between '98 and '01.

- Punishment always results in unintended victims. If I murder a person, I'm thrown in prison. My daughters are victims now because they no longer have the support structure I bring them. Should I not be thrown in prison to avoid hurting my daughters?

- Anyone sayins some version of "It would have been better had they just given them the death penalty" has no concept of what the death penalty truly does to a program. No, death penalty, even for only one year, would not have been better.

These penalties seem fair, but who the hell knows. This situation is completely unprecedented, so who am I (or any of us) to say if they really are fair or not?

- C -

[festivus]

- Vacating wins was done because had they come forward with announcing Sandusky's problems in '01, it would have hurt the reputation of the school and program, which would have hurt recruiting and the viability of the program. Thus it created a competitive imbalance. Thus, vacate wins during that time. Doing so from '98 was stupid and arbitrary. Sandusky was formally investigated and cleared. I don't think I've heard anyone in the PSU administration alleged to have done something wrong between '98 and '01.

- Punishment always results in unintended victims. If I murder a person, I'm thrown in prison. My daughters are victims now because they no longer have the support structure I bring them. Should I not be thrown in prison to avoid hurting my daughters?

- Anyone sayins some version of "It would have been better had they just given them the death penalty" has no concept of what the death penalty truly does to a program. No, death penalty, even for only one year, would not have been better.

These penalties seem fair, but who the hell knows. This situation is completely unprecedented, so who am I (or any of us) to say if they really are fair or not?

- C -

You've been very levelheaded about this whole thing, PSU.

[Kevlar]

- Vacating wins was done because had they come forward with announcing Sandusky's problems in '01, it would have hurt the reputation of the school and program, which would have hurt recruiting and the viability of the program. Thus it created a competitive imbalance. Thus, vacate wins during that time. Doing so from '98 was stupid and arbitrary. Sandusky was formally investigated and cleared. I don't think I've heard anyone in the PSU administration alleged to have done something wrong between '98 and '01.

I believe they are saying that Sandusky was investigated in '98 and that investigation was hushed and swept under the rug just like they tried to do with the mcquery investigation in '01. A victim actually came forward in '98 but the prosecutor declined to press charges. A prosecutor who later disappeared? Probably paid off handsomely and living in tahiti.

[Sirdowski]

It is perfectly logical, and it is supported by common sense.

So? How is that the measuring stick for whether or not it was a just ruling?

Your saying "common sense" as if this issue were as simple as '1+1=2' far from it. This ruling wasn't simply a result of objective necessity. Just the fact that a board met and discussed the ramifications says otherwise.

[psuasskicker]

I believe they are saying that Sandusky was investigated in '98 and that investigation was hushed and swept under the rug just like they tried to do with the mcquery investigation in '01. A victim actually came forward in '98 but the prosecutor declined to press charges. A prosecutor who later disappeared? Probably paid off handsomely and living in tahiti.

Yeah I get what they're saying, it just makes no sense. It wasn't swept under the rug. Investigations are supposed to stay silent. First, the person being investigated shouldn't know they are being investigated if it can be avoided, as it compromises the integrity of the investigations. Exception being if someone else is in danger and you need to get them out of danger, then it should be known. Once he's exonerated, reporting further on it should NOT be done.

And you're being way too idealistic. The DA you're talking about was FAR more likely killed.

- C -

[festivus]

So? How is that the measuring stick for whether or not it was a just ruling?

Your saying "common sense" as if this issue were as simple as '1+1=2' far from it. This ruling wasn't simply a result of objective necessity. Just the fact that a board met and discussed the ramifications says otherwise.

Yes, it is complicated.

I was responding to strez' "Thank you for actually using reason and common sense," which I thought was out of line. I should have used a quote block, but I didn't. "Common sense" could have been used to support other outcomes, too, as you imply.

[Kevlar]

Yeah I get what they're saying, it just makes no sense. It wasn't swept under the rug. Investigations are supposed to stay silent. First, the person being investigated shouldn't know they are being investigated if it can be avoided, as it compromises the integrity of the investigations. Exception being if someone else is in danger and you need to get them out of danger, then it should be known. Once he's exonerated, reporting further on it should NOT be done.

And you're being way too idealistic. The DA you're talking about was FAR more likely killed.

The elected small town DA wasn't making a lot of money and both Sandusky and Penn State have deep pockets. Sandusky was a very generous political donor via his charity, and if you think he and the DA, who's wife worked at Penn State didn't know each other...

Dude is enjoying a nice retirement courtesy of chester the child molester, who he hooked up with a get out of jail free card. I imagine the timing of his disappearance coincided with the Mcqueary investigation picking up steam.